Student Loans and Statute of limitations/CCA

[rameses_qc]

Yes indeedy, very easily. if they can't be bothered to make any effort to formally pursue the debt for six years, then that's their tough titty

[avatari]

You need to know if your loan is a pre-1998 style loan or post -1998 style loan. Post 1998 loans do not become statute barred. The law was changed I believe so that they could get you.

 

Clarification on post-1998, please? I thought that in either case, SoL applies in court as both types are simple contracts: after 6 years, a post-1998 loan CANNOT be enforced by a court - no CCJ can be granted.

 

Yes, money still can still be taken via PAYE after 6 years (if you give them PAYE ref) and they do not need to go to court to do so - but if you tell them to stop chasing you under statute barred, then techically they must stop, as per OFT guidelines?

[pblackie]

Hmm, just received a letter telling me that unless I contact them they will issue court proceedings. As far as i am aware statute barred is a complete defence or am I wrong and SLC have re-writtain the law:-?

[cerberusalert]

Make a complaint to your local trading standards & the OFT with regards to their harassment and threats, they are in clear breach of OFT guidelines & CPUT ;

 

Consumer Direct - Contact us

 

OFT Complaint form

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/DebtCollectionComplaintForm.DOC

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Contact us

 

debtcollectionguidance@oft.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

tel: 020 7211 5823

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Debt collection practices

 

http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

[concernedaboutunfairness]

pblackie, be very careful about contact. Never admit a loan exists, so watch what you say or write all the time. If you talk or write, only ever say "a previous loan, now lapsed". Are you sure it's over 6 years? In any case, don't admit a loan and be sure.

 

avatari, I'm sure I remember your interpretation is what I made out some time ago just from reading the post 1998 loan terms wording, and that I thought it couldn't be any different from the terms. But I read people say that the post-1998 loans are not statute barred, and I thought perhaps this is due to new law which applies from then which isn't clear from the actual loan terms. And again, perhaps those people described them as not statue barred only because the loans could be in one way, by P.A.Y.E., extracted from the borrowers. Does anybody, Cons. Action people or forum posters know this?

 

And what does it take for any loan to be a relevant loan, aside from Student Loans, for the Limitation Act statute barred lapse after 6 years? Is it merely that loans can be excluded from 6 years Limitation Act due to a clause written into the loan agreement? And if there is a clause written into the loan agreement, is there any over-riding statutory (or even case law) period after which any loan lapses in the same way as the 6 year term?

 

Also, can someone confirm for definite that once the 6 years is up and the loan becomes lapsed, it can not be revived? I read this in the pop up box from this site re: the 6 year period after which the Limitation Act applies. But I remember, and this was years ago, that if the loan has passed the 6 years where the Limitation Act comes into force, the loan is considered active again if and as soon as you admit it to the lender (and admitting it need not have constituted as much as formal or proper words of admittance). Has this all changed? Are relevant loans barred for every, no matter what, after 6 years?

 

rameses qc - the loan company can have been pursuing you all they ways and all the hours they could, including contracting numerous credit agencies to have you pay and investigation agencies to find you. The Limitation Act is concerned with your rights after 6 years, whatever has happened. It's that it's not considered equitable to your rights to be suddenly presented with having a loan to pay off after that amount of years, if the company have not, for whatever reason, been in touch with you or you with them. It's a very humane and enlightened law. It's not at all suggesting you may step away from a loan within those 6 years, but whatever happens, it's not thought anyone should have to pay after that time of no contact.

[avatari]

Please have a look at my thread at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/students/239734-slc-student-loan-default.html#post2666505 as I could do with some help myself. Those buggers have gone and stuck a default with the CRAs, but SB and invalid DN! Thanks

[avatari]

pblackie and expatscot, have either of you heard any more from slc or any of their agents?

[pblackie]

Just received a letter from SLC stating I must repay and asking me to complete an income & expenditure form and make an offer of repayment!!! Do they believe they are exempt from the limitations act? reminder letter on the way to them

[pblackie]

On the way to them

 

You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

 

I would point out that under the limitation act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

 

I would also point out that the OFT say under their debt collection Guidance on statute barred debt that “it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period”.

 

The last payment of this alleged debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970”.

I have written to you before informing you that this account is statute barred, In light of this be warned that if you continue to pursue me for this account I will lodge a Harassment complaint with the OFT.

 

I await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that no further contact will be made concerning the above account after that last letter.

 

I look forward to your reply.